The object of the present work is to present to the public, in a form that may be generally accessible, the history of one of the most interesting periods in the annals of our National Church, by the republication of her Acts and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era of her second Reformation; and, combined therewith, such historical documents and sketches as are calculated to preserve the memory of an important, and, ultimately, beneficial revolution in Scotland.

The Reformation from Popery—of which the seeds had been sown during the lapse of the half century which preceded the abolition of that system of national religion in 1560—forms the subject-matter of a distinct epoch, which has been amply illustrated in the works of Principal Robertson, Dr Cook, and Dr M‘Crie, and which has been further developed more authentically in the pages of the “Booke of the Universall Kirke;” and it is not within the range of the present compilation to take any retrospect of the events which occurred in reference to the Reformed Church of Scotland, prior to the year 1633, when King Charles I. was crowned King of Scotland. It may be deemed sufficient to note merely, that Popery was abolished, by act of Parliament, on the 24th of August 1560, and the reformed doctrines recognised and tolerated by contemporary statute; that, in 1567, the Protestant Church was established and endowed; that the mixed Episcopal and Presbyterian form of Church government which subsisted during the first thirty-two years of its existence, yielded to the Presbyterian polity, which was established by act of Parliament on the 5th of June 1592; and that Episcopacy having been insinuated through the instrumentality of the General Assembly of the Church,1 in consequence of the intrigues of King James VI., became, though in a modified shape, the established form of the Protestant Church in Scotland, by virtue of various acts of Parliament.2

Such was the nature of the Established Protestant Church of Scotland when Charles I. ascended the thrones of both the British kingdoms, at the demise of his father, on the 22d of March 1625; and such it continued to be up to the time that we have selected as the commencement of the period, to the illustration of which the following pages are devoted.

Along with his crown, Charles I. inherited from his father, a legacy of political and ecclesiastical bigotry, and a cluster of debateable questions betwixt him and his subjects, which, ere long, involved him in numberless embarrassments and conflicts, that terminated only with his life on the scaffold. In reference to Scotland, that which first brought him into collision with his northern subjects, was a project of resuming grants which had been lavishly bestowed by his father on his nobility and other minions (or which were usurped by them,) of the tithes and benefices that had belonged to the Popish Church prior to the Reformation. James himself had contemplated such a revocation before his death, and also the establishment of a Liturgy in the Scottish Episcopacy, recently introduced, and but imperfectly consolidated; but he wanted the courage to adopt the requisite measures for that purpose, which were calculated to rouse into active hostility the combined opposition of a fierce aristocracy, and of the Presbyterian clergy and people, who had been cheated out of their favoured scheme of church polity by the insidious manoeuvres of James. The revocation was the first step taken by Charles in pursuance of his father’s policy; and it was justified by precedents in the commencement of every new reign, during the previous history of Scotland. But the first attempt to accomplish this end proved abortive, and had nearly produced the most tragical consequences. It may be proper to advert briefly to these occurrences.

In October 1625, a Convention of Estates was held for the consideration of this interesting topic; but the proposition was rejected by nearly all the nobility and gentry, many of whom had profited from the plunder of the ecclesiastical patrimony; and Bishop Burnet3 gives a very characteristic anecdote of the proceedings on the occasion. The Earl of Nithsdale, as Commissioner, had been instructed to exact an unconditional surrender; but the parties interested had previously conspired, and resolved that, if they could not otherwise deter him from prosecuting the measure, “they would fall upon him and all his party, in the old Scottish manner, and knock them on the head;” and so deadly was their purpose, that one of their number, who was blind, (Belhaven,) and was seated beside the Earl of Dumfries, had clutched hold of him with one hand, and was prepared, had any stir arisen, to plunge a dagger in his heart. Nithsdale, however, seeing the stormy aspect of the conclave, disguised his instructions, and returned to London disappointed in his mission.

A convocation of the clergy, however, whose views were directed to a complete restoration of its ancient patrimony to the Church, and a large body of the landed proprietors, who had suffered from the rapacity of the Lords of Erection, and titulars, who had obtained the Church property and tithes, were favourable to a revocation—animated by the hope that, in any new distribution of the revenues, a larger portion of these would fall to their lot from the royal favour than they could ever expect from the individual overlords and improprietors. These two classes, therefore, co-operated in supporting the views of the King, for a resumption of church property and tithes; and these movements resulted in the well known arbitration, by which his Majesty obtained a general surrender of the impropriated tithes and benefices, under which the law upon this subject was ultimately settled by the enactments in the Statute-book,4 leaving unavoidably an extended spirit of discontent among the disappointed parties in the most influential classes of the community.

One of the main objects of Charles’ policy being thus partially accomplished, he proceeded to Scotland in the summer of 1633, for the purpose of being crowned in his native kingdom. His Majesty’s progress and inauguration were distinguished by unwonted splendour, and he received a cordial welcome from his northern subjects; but some parts of the ceremonial gave deep offence to the Scottish people, as savouring strongly of Popish mummeries; and the morning of his reign was speedily overcast in Scotland, by a most unwise and obstinate assertion of the royal prerogative in some matters of the most ludicrous insignificancy. In 1606, an act had passed in the Scottish Parliament, asserting the royal prerogative to an extravagant pitch; and another in 1609, by which King James VI. was empowered to prescribe apparel to the churchmen with the consent of the Church—a concession which had been made to gratify that monarch’s predilections for all priest-like intermeddling with ecclesiastical affairs, and all sorts of trifling details. But these concessions had lain dormant during the remainder of his reign, and had never been acted upon; nay, when, in 1617, an act had been prepared by the Lords of Articles, authorizing all things that should thereafter be determined in ecclesiastical affairs by his Majesty, with consent of a competent number of the clergy selected by himself, to be law, he ordered that act to be suppressed in the House, although it had passed the Lords of Articles.

Charles, however, not sufficiently acquainted with the latent spirit of his Scottish subjects, ordered an act to be framed, soon after his coronation, embodying the enactments of both the statutes above alluded to, asserting the unlimited prerogative of the King in all matters, civil and ecclesiastical, and giving him power to regulate the robes and raiment of ecclesiastics. This was strenuously opposed by Rothes, Balmerino, and a majority of the Estates, notwithstanding the personal presence of the King, and his domineering orders to them to vote and not to speak. By a juggle, however, the clerk-register (Primrose) reported the majority the other way—a falsity which could not be impugned without incurring the pains of treason; and so intent was Charles on coercing the Estates into this measure, that he marked on a list the names of all who had voted against his crotchet, and threatened them with his resentment.5

These extraordinary and indecorous stretches of authority, excited the greatest alarm. The freedom of speech in Parliament, its independence, and the integrity of its record, were violated in a manner the most outrageous and inconsistent with all liberty or safety. The nobility held various consultations as to what was to be done in this juncture, and a petition to the King was drawn up and shewn to some of them—amongst others to Batmerino; but the King having declared that he would receive no explanation or remonstrance from them, the purpose was dropped. A copy of it however, with some corrections on it in Balmerino’s handwriting, having been confided by him to a notary for transcription, it was treacherously conveyed to Charles, by Spottiswood, Archbishop of St Andrew’s, some months afterwards. For this innocent and, according to modern notions, this constitutional exercise of the right of petition, or rather this intent to exercise it, Balmerino was put on his trial,6 before a packed court and a packed jury, for leasingmaking or an attempt to sow dissension betwixt the King and his subjects—an offence of the most arbitrary construction, and certainly not overtly committed by Balmerino in this case. Seven of the jury were for acquittal—but eight, being a majority, found him guilty—and he was sentenced to a capital punishment.

This trial excited the deepest interest throughout the country, and its result produced consternation, and prompted to the most desperate counsels. It was proposed to force the prison and rescue Balmerino; or, if that failed, to kill the obnoxious judges and jurors, and burn their houses. But these perilous resolutions were obviated by Lord Traquair, one of the jury and a tool of the Court, representing to the King the consequences which were to be apprehended; and it was found expedient to grant Balmerino a pardon.7

These were the first false steps of Charles in Scotland. They shook irretrievably the confidence of his subjects in his personal integrity, and in his reverence for the law and the purity of its administration; and the whole of these proceedings are eminently instructive, as evincing to what trivial circumstances, in some respects, convulsions and revolutions, of an extended and sweeping character, may often be ascribed as the source. It is exceedingly difficult now to estimate fully the motives of either party in these transactions. The Scottish Estates were not averse to yield the point of royal supremacy exacted by James and Charles; but when the latter claimed as his prerogative the power to regulate the draperies of the priesthood, it was vehemently resisted by parliament and people as an encroachment on their religious liberties. And to this paltry subject, which was more appropriate to a college of tailors than to the cabinet of a monarch or the arena of a senate, we may trace the first beginnings of that succession of revolutions which, for upwards of half a century afterwards, overflowed the land with torrents of blood and of tears.8

The arbitrary principles in which Charles had been trained by his father, were so deeply impressed on his character, that, though in other respects an able and amiable man, they were never eradicated from his mind by all his experience of their consequences. Prompted by the bigoted intolerance of Laud, surrounded by court sycophants, who sought favour by subserviency to his prejudices, and betrayed in Scotland by a set of the most unprincipled knaves, both lay and clerical, that ever were destined to mislead a sovereign into disgrace and destruction, Charles took not warning in his government from the lessons that had been taught him in the transaction to which we have thus briefly alluded; and he must needs enforce by coercion in Scotland that uniformity in religious ceremonials with the Episcopal Church of England, on which his father had bestowed so much of his royal wisdom.9 His enterprises in this respect led to consequences which he little anticipated, and which terminated most fatally for his own authority and honour. We allude to his attempt to introduce the Liturgy and canons, which were concocted for the Church in Scotland, under the auspices of Archbishop Laud—an attempt which, within a very brief space after Balmerino’s trial and sentence had excited universal alarm, rallied the whole population of Scotland under the banner of “The Covenant,” in open resistance to their throned monarch; presenting to our contemplation one of the most remarkable and sublime moral spectacles that is to be found in the history of ancient or modern times—an entire nation simultaneously banding themselves together, and leagued by solemn religious vows, for the vindication and maintenance of their liberties, civil and religious, yet cherishing and avowing their allegiance to their sovereign, except in so far as he exceeded his legitimate authority.

Before entering on the Proceedings and Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church from 1638 to 1649, which it is one of the objects of this work to preserve, it is necessary, for the elucidation of these, to detail the circumstances, political and ecclesiastical, (these being, in truth, identical,) which preceded that great demonstration of the national will and power, during the years 1636 and 1637; and, in doing so, the facts shall be as concisely stated as is practicable, amidst the great mass of materials which are supplied to the student of our history in the numerous works that treat of the period now referred to.10

Early in the progress of the Scottish Reformation, the Lords of the Congregation had directed the “Book of Common Order,” as it was called, which was used in the Protestant Church of Geneva, to be read in the religious service of the Scottish Reformers; and it was sanctioned by the Church in the “First Book of Discipline,” among the first of its acts after the abolition of Popery.11 Under this sanction, the “Book of Common Prayer” was appointed to be used by the Readers as a part of the public worship in the churches; and, so far as we can discover, it continued to be used, either as an essential part or, at least, as the model for prayer in public worship, during the fluctuations in the frame of the Church in the time of James VI. The Assembly at Aberdeen,12 indeed, had ordered the Geneva form to be revised; but the vehement opposition made in the subsequent Assembly at Perth to King James’ Articles, induced him to suspend his innovation.

Charles, however, a man of higher moral and personal courage than his father, and stimulated by the fanatical and semipopish zeal of Laud, had given instructions, during his recent visit to Scotland, for superseding the early Book of Order, and directed the introduction of Canons and a Liturgy similar to those of England. In order to deceive the Scotch into a belief that it was different, and to soothe the national pride, by eschewing the aspect of servile imitation as a mark of its dependence on the English hierarchy, the Scotch Prelates devised a new Liturgy, which was, in many points, and indeed in its leading features, much more Popish than that of England.

The Canons were first compiled and confirmed by the Royal Supremacy. They comprehended whatever the Kings of Israel or the Emperors of the Primitive Church had arrogated; secured from challenge the consecration of the bishops; and added terror to excommunication, by annexing confiscation and outlawry as the penalties of incurring it. The Liturgy was sanctioned before it was actually framed. By it the clergy were forbidden to deviate from its forms, or to pray extemporaneously; the demeanour of the people in public worship was rigorously prescribed; kirk-sessions and presbyteries, as these were established by the act 1592, were abolished, under the new designation of “conventicles;” the powers of these were transferred to the bishops, and lay elders entirely superseded; and the whole texture and spirit of it was manifestly Popish, embodying, in almost undisguised terms, the form of the missals, and introducing every particular, both of doctrine and ceremonial, that was most obnoxious to the whole population, except the prelates, nine of whom, out of fourteen, had been introduced into the Privy Council, while Archbishop Spottiswood was created Chancellor, and Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, aspired to the office of Lord Treasurer—thus combining the highest spiritual with the highest political functions, and forming a conclave of despotism entirely subservient to the King.

The new order of things, therefore, was not a mere institution of Episcopacy, in which only spiritual jurisdiction was conferred, and different orders of clergy were established, as in England; but it was palpably a political engine, incompatible with the existence of civil liberty or freedom of conscience in matters of religion; and this innovation became universally obnoxious to the whole nation, by reason of its manifest revival of the practices and ritual of the Catholics. A font was appointed to be placed in the entrance of the church, the cross was enjoined in baptism, and the water was changed and consecrated in the font twice a month; an altar was appointed for the chancel; the communion table, decorated, was placed in the east, and the consecration of the elements was a prayer expressive of the Real Presence, and their elevation deemed an actual oblation. The confessions of the penitent were to be concealed by the clergy; and the whole contexture of this novel Liturgy was such, in conjunction with the Canons, as to effect a total subversion of all the principles cherished by the bulk of the nation from the date of the Reformation, and to overthrow the entire system of Presbyterian doctrine and discipline that had previously prevailed in the usages of the Church, and the law of the land.

It is noways surprising, therefore, that these innovations produced tremendous revulsion throughout the country; and they were rendered still more offensive by the mode of their introduction—without the consent of a General Assembly of the Church or of Parliament, but solely by virtue of the royal prerogative, and the authority of the prelates—the advice even of the Privy Council, and some of the elder prelates being entirely contemned. The alarm was sounded from the pulpits by a great majority of the parochial clergy, and pervaded, not merely the common people, but the gentry also, and, with few exceptions, all the ancient nobility of the realm: every man, whether valuing his religious principles, or his political liberty and safety, was appalled by the immediate prospect of an intolerant spiritual domination and civil tyranny being established in the land of his forefathers. “In short,” as Dr Cook emphatically states, “the complete command of the Church was given to the bishops, and the kingdom was thus laid at the foot of the throne.”13

In this state matters continued from the time that these changes became known, in 1636, till the summer of 1637. At the same time, besides the Court of High Commission, each of the prelates obtained subordinate Commission-courts, which were, in all respects, so many local inquisitions; so that “Black Prelacy” was armed in Scotland with all the powers and terrors of the Popish Church anterior to its abolition. The prelates, however, were at first deterred, by well-grounded apprehensions, from the exercise of their late-sprung power. A general adoption of the Liturgy at Easter had been required by royal proclamation, but the day had elapsed before the publication of it took place; and it was not till May 1637 that a charge was ordered to be given to the clergy, that each of them should “buy and provide” two copies for his parish, under the penalty of escheat of his effects. The Council, however, had omitted in their edict to require the adoption and practice of these formularies, although, doubtless, the conjoint effect of these innovations was held to imply an imperative rule for the clergy. This looseness of phraseology, however, opened a door for the recusant clergy to evade the use of the new ritual, and paved the way for an eventual defeat of the prelates’ schemes.14

On the 16th of July 1637, an order was intimated from the pulpit in Edinburgh, that, on the following Sunday, the Liturgy would be introduced; and this without the concurrence of the Privy Council or any previous arrangement for smoothing its reception. This notice excited great popular agitation, and brought the collision betwixt the court and prelates on the one side, and the country on the other, to a crisis. On Sunday following, (23d July,) the Dean of Edinburgh officiated in St Giles’, and the Bishop elect of Argyle in the Greyfriars’ church, each of them being attended by some of the Judges, Prelates, Members of Council, and other dignitaries, so as to give an imposing effect to the introduction of the obnoxious services. St Giles’ church was crowded, and all went on with the wonted solemnity of public worship until the reading of the service commenced, when Janet Geddes, an humble female, rose up and exclaimed, “Villain! daurst thou say the mass at my lug?” and, suiting the action to the word, she tossed the stool on which she had been sitting at the Dean’s head. Forthwith, the assembled multitude broke out into such a tumult as (Baillie says) “was never heard of since the Reformation,” exclaiming, “A Pape! a Pape! Antichrist!” and accompanying these expressions with a violent assault on the doors and windows, so as effectually to interrupt the service. In the other church, of Greyfriars, the performance of the service was attended with similar, though less violent demonstrations of popular hostility; and it was with difficulty that the officiating priests were rescued from the violence of the outraged multitude. The greatest excitement pervaded the city throughout the day; and in every quarter of the country where the Liturgy was attempted to be introduced, except at St Andrew’s, Brechin, Dunblane, and Ross, it was resisted with similar manifestations of anger and disgust; and this popular effervescence was speedily extended from the lower to the higher ranks, betwixt which the most entire sympathy existed, although the latter adopted a more rational and effective mode of resistance.

It is beyond the range of these introductory remarks, to enter on all the details of procedure which took place from the first outbreak of this opposition till the meeting of the General Assembly of Glasgow, in November 1838. Of these, all the particulars are fully detailed in Lord Rothes’ MS. Relation, in the Advocates’ Library, Baillie’s Letters, and other contemporary chronicles, and more recently in Mr Laing’s and Dr Cook’s Histories, and Dr Alton’s Life of Henderson—a man who, at that juncture, arose to great eminence, to guide his countrymen In their struggles, and to dignify their cause by the distinguished talents which in him were called forth and displayed on this occasion. It is sufficient for the present purpose to note a few of the more prominent facts and occurrences which hastened the movement and, ere long, prostrated the royal authority in Scotland.

Henderson, then minister of Leuchars, in Fife, and three other clergymen from the Presbyteries of Irvine, Ayr, and Glasgow, having been pressed by the prelatical authorities on the score of the Liturgy presented, on the 20th of August, bills of suspension to the Privy Council, upon the grounds that the recent innovations were illegal, not being sanctioned by Parliament or the General Assembly, and as being in contravention to the Acts of Parliament and of the Church. The Council eluded these broad grounds, by finding that the edicts of which suspension was sought, did not require the observance, but only the purchase, of the new formalities; and the Council communicated with the King as to the dilemma in which both he and they were now placed. His Majesty, however, unmoved by these events, ordered the immediate observance of the ritual, (September 20,) and rebuked the tardiness of the Council. But whenever this untoward resolution of the King was known, the four ministers, who were thus the foremost men in the contest, were joined and supported by twenty-four peers, a great many of the gentry, sixty-six commissioners from towns and parishes, and nearly one hundred ministers, who immediately poured in numerous petitions, remonstrating against the imposition of the Liturgy and Canons.15 These gave open demonstrations of their making common cause with Henderson and his associates, going in a body to the door of the Council House, in the High Street of the metropolis, with their remonstrances or petitions; and thus they sustained the four individuals who had been selected by the prelates for persecution. During the interval which elapsed before an answer was returned, the remonstrants busied themselves in agitating their grievances over the whole kingdom, and speedily organized one of the most formidable and best constructed oppositions to which any government ever was exposed.

It having been intimated that answers from Court to their remonstrances and petitions would reach Edinburgh on the 18th of October, great multitudes, from all parts of the country, flocked to the capital. The Privy Council were panic-struck, and issued proclamations, intimating that, at the first Council-day, nothing should be done relating to the Church; ordering all strangers to leave Edinburgh within twenty-four hours; removing the Council and Session from Edinburgh to Linlithgow, and afterwards to Dundee; and denouncing a book which had been published against the measures of the Court and Prelates. This brought matters to a crisis.

Having delivered the several applications with which they had been intrusted from the provinces to the Clerk of the Council, the noblemen, gentlemen, and clergy met in three different bodies; but they concurred in a general declaration against the obnoxious books, and ordered it to be presented to the Council. It were tedious enumerating all the proclamations by the King and Council, and the protestations against these by the nobles and clergy, and all the negotiations and intrigues which supervened—of these original documents, however, copies will be given in the notes subjoined to the Acts of Assembly in 1638; but it would savour of undue partiality to the proceedings of the malcontents, if we omitted to state that, during the whole of the period alluded to, many disgraceful outrages were perpetrated by the rabble, who, in the language of Baillie, seemed to be “possessed with a bloody devil,” the authorities being utterly unprepared and unable to repress these disorders, at the very time that they were exciting the people of all classes by their lawless and inconsiderate edicts and tyrannical acts.

These mutual exasperations had reached the highest pitch, when, in February 1638, the Presbyterians assumed a bold and perilous attitude, amounting almost to a practical dereliction of their allegiance to the King, and an assumption of supreme authority. In order to avoid the large and tumultuary assemblages which had taken place during the preceding year, the Council had required that the supplications and communications should be managed by delegates and commissioners from the greater masses; and, accordingly, those persons acting in this capacity, under the sanction of the King’s Council, had, in the preceding November, formed large and influential subdivisions of themselves into distinct bodies called “Tables,” representing the different classes who were combined for the vindication of their religious liberties—one for the nobility, another for the gentry, a third for the clergy, and a fourth for the burghs. Committees of the most influential and zealous of each class, sat at four different tables in the Parliament House, having sub-committees, and a central one of the whole, devising and concocting such measures as they deemed necessary for promoting the common cause; thus centralizing the public feeling of the country, and again giving forth mandates from their united Councils, with all the force and authority of law, to the people, and superseding virtually the functions both of the Executive and Legislature of the country.

The most noted act of this anomalous Convention was the formation of a muniment, which was composed by Henderson and Johnston of Warriston, and revised by Balmerino, Rothes, and Loudon, and which was destined to be a powerful instrument in the hands of these national leaders. The Covenant was framed and promulgated at the time we refer to, and henceforward became the rallying standard of the nation, or, at least, of a great majority of its inhabitants, during the space of half a century, till a more benignant symbol of freedom was unfurled at the Revolution, under which the people of these realms have hitherto, since that time, enjoyed all the blessings of a limited monarchy, and institutions for the maintenance of the Protestant faith, and perfect freedom of conscience to all classes of the people.

The adoption and character of that remarkable League enter so deeply into the subject of the present undertaking, that, in order to render numerous subsequent proceedings intelligible to many persons, it is necessary to devote particular attention to it, and the circumstances under which it was promulgated.

The Earl of Traquair returned to Scotland, on the 15th of February, with instructions from the King in reference to the affairs of Scotland. He dissembled at first the full tenor of these, in his communications with the leaders of the Tables, and, on the 19th, proceeded, early in the morning, to Stirling, to publish the proclamation of which he was the bearer, before the Presbyterians should be apprized of his intentions, or prepared to offer any show of opposition. Lord Lindsay and Lord Hume, however, being apprised of Traquair’s movements, had outstripped him, and were on the spot to protest against its effects. The proclamation expressed the King’s approval of the Liturgy; declared all the petitions against it derogatory to his supreme authority, and deserving the severest censure, and prohibited the supplicants to assemble again under the penalties of treason.16

When this proclamation, which was calculated to excite their most gloomy apprehensions, and to extinguish all their hopes of the King ever listening to their remonstrances, was proclaimed by the heralds at Stirling, Lords Hume and Lindsay made formal protestation against it, claiming a right of access to the King by petition; declining the prelates as judges in any court, civil or ecclesiastical; protesting that no act of Council, past or future, (the prelates being members,) should be prejudicial to the supplicants, in their persons or estates; that the Presbyterians should not incur any danger in life or lands, or any political or ecclesiastical pains, for not observing the Book of Liturgy, Canons, Rules, Judicatories, and Proclamations; but that it should be lawful for them to worship God according to His Word and Constitutions of the Church and Kingdom, &c.; and it concluded with professions of loyalty, and a declaration that they only desired the preservation of the true reformed religion, and laws and liberties of the kingdom. A copy of this protestation was affixed to the Cross of Stirling. It was afterwards repeated at Linlithgow and Edinburgh, to the presence of seventeen Peers, and everywhere else where the proclamation was published.

In these critical circumstances, and to order at once to guard themselves from the perils which were sure to overtake them individually if severed, and exposed at once to the obstinate displeasure of the King and the revenge of the prelates, the nobles resolved to consolidate their union by a solemn engagement, such at those which had been entered into by the Lords of the Congregation and first Protestants, to the dawn and during the progress of the Reformation to its earlier stages.17 The positions in which they stood were similar; and the example of the fathers and founders of the Protestant Church in Scotland, naturally prompted the Tables to imitation, independently of the ancient usage which existed to Scotland, of entering into “Bands” for mutual protection and support in troubled times. The model, however, which they had chiefly in view was a “Confession” framed under the auspices and instructions of King James VI., in which the errors of Popery were abjured, and to which there was subsequently added a bond, or obligation, to maintain the true religion, and protect the King’s person, as well as for the general defence.18 Taking that document as the basis and model of the Covenant, the leaders of the Presbyterian’s superadded to it an obligation to defend each other against all persons whatsoever, and a pointed denunciation of the innovations recently attempted to be forced upon the country.

For the course thus adopted, they had precedents in the conduct of the first Reformers—in that of King James himself, who had signed the “Confession,” and sought the signature of all his subjects—and in the terms of the early “bands” for mutual defence and maintenance of the reformed doctrines. Nor is it necessary to resort to any casuistry to justify the adoption of such an engagement. Dr Cook justly remarks, that the vindication of the Covenant is to be rested “upon this great principle, that when the ends for which all government should be instituted are defeated, the oppressed have a clear right to disregard customary forms, and to assert the privileges without which they would be condemned to the degradation and wretchedness of despotism.”19 That such was the predicament in which the Church and people of Scotland were placed, by the reiterated proclamations and edicts issued by the King and the Scots Privy Council for several years prior to February 1838, and that these amounted to an unqualified assumption of arbitrary and absolute power, paramount to the authority of Parliament, and the sanctions of the ecclesiastical authorities established by law, are points which do not admit of the slightest doubt; and no alternative remained but that the nobles, clergy, and people of Scotland, should combine, in the most constitutional manner that was practicable, for maintaining the law, and for mutual defence, or tamely submit their necks to the yoke which most assuredly would have been permanently imposed on them by the base minions of a court, and an unprincipled hierarchy. Whatever errors they subsequently committed, and however much we may deplore the infatuation by which Charles was misled in urging his Scottish subjects into such decisive measures, no one who is versed in the elements of the British Constitution, or imbued with the spirit of genuine freedom, can hesitate to admit that, in adopting the Covenant, the people of Scotland were, at the time, not only fully justified, but were imperatively constrained to do so by every motive which can influence Christians, patriots, and brave men. The most eminent lawyers of these times, too, declared their opinions that there was nothing in the Covenant inconsistent with loyalty to a constitutional sovereign; nor has anything ever yet appeared, whether in the contemporary defences of the Court, or in the pages of more recent historians and critics, to shake the soundness of that opinion.

Deviating from the practice of historians, who merely give an abstract and brief statement of the contents of the Covenant, we deem it more suitable and convenient, in a compilation like the present, to embody in this Introductory Sketch the entire document, as it appears in the authenticated records, and, therefore, have subjoined it, as deserving of the reader’s attention, before proceeding to consider the events which followed its adoption.